It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice. The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist. - Thomas Paine

A lone human being isolated from others has the ability to what ever he so wishes. Once that human being encounters others, his conduct becomes restricted. Actions become, a cornucopia of effects. That which are harmful to others becomes the point at which a law needs to be made and a bit of freedom taken away.

So it should be plain to see that rights are a way of protecting individual freedom from the suppression of society or the tyranny of governments.

(22-03-2013 05:49 PM)Chas Wrote: Where did you read 'unlimited' in my statement? I have a right to my person. You have the right to yours.

I think I made it utterly clear what happens if someone disagrees.

I put a question mark behind it. That means I was asking a question, not telling you.

You are claiming rights, that you do not have, irrationally and arbitrarily. You might as well just claim unlimited rights, i.e. rights to all things within your ability to back up, as that might actually make sense. What you said was just complete bullshit.

How is my claiming that each of us has a right to his or her own person bullshit?

Please explain.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(24-03-2013 08:20 AM)Chas Wrote: How is my claiming that each of us has a right to his or her own person bullshit?

Please explain.

Arbitrary and irrational, at least that is what kind of bullshit I was referring to.

I was just questioning: Why would you stop there?

As easily as you can claim a right to your own person, I can make the same claim about my right to you. I can make a claim to myself, but I also make a claim to Jupiter, the Atlantic ocean, the entire world, the universe, my neighbor's house, etc.

I was just denying that there is any thing, that gives any person, a natural and/or inherent right to something, any thing, thus if you want to pick a thing to claim a right to, you might as well pick everything.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

For the record, Les Philosophes were men like Voltaire, Diedrot, Montesquieu and Rousseau. These were the men that directly influenced the founding fathers.

In part, but John Locke was probably one of, if the the, biggest influence on that time period. Also, guys like David Hume, Adam Smith, etc.

They weren't just influenced by French philosophers and revolutionaries. They were influenced by previous Enlightenment thinkers, in general, as well as their own ideas.

Quote:I know this was rhetorical but it was one of the few things I understood When your rights are removed, you're being oppressed.... is what I would say anyway.

That was the problem. That's circular, because you are presupposing that you actually have rights. My point was, if you can be, what you would consider "oppressed", even assuming rights, what is the point of assuming rights?

You can still have morality, just not an entitlement to be (or not) treated a certain way i.e. a type of right.

Quote:I kinda feel bad that I'm not understanding you. But I'm not. This seemed like a pretty pivotal paragraph, but I can't make sense of it.

So yeah, clearly there's a disconnect here. If you're game, I'm happy to try and see if we can figure out what it is.

(24-03-2013 08:20 AM)Chas Wrote: How is my claiming that each of us has a right to his or her own person bullshit?

Please explain.

Arbitrary and irrational, at least that is what kind of bullshit I was referring to.

I was just questioning: Why would you stop there?

As easily as you can claim a right to your own person, I can make the same claim about my right to you. I can make a claim to myself, but I also make a claim to Jupiter, the Atlantic ocean, the entire world, the universe, my neighbor's house, etc.

I was just denying that there is any thing, that gives any person, a natural and/or inherent right to something, any thing, thus if you want to pick a thing to claim a right to, you might as well pick everything.

That is irrational.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

I'm not going to argue the degree to which what thinkers influenced the founding fathers the most. The influence of Les Philosophes is a matter of record and does not preclude the influence of other Enlightenment thinkers.

Quote:That's circular, because you are presupposing that you actually have
rights. My point was, if you can be, what you would consider
"oppressed", even assuming rights, what is the point of assuming rights?

I am presupposing that we actually have rights. So I was correct to assume that that was my position and that your position is that we do not have rights?

If I can be smothered to death, why assume the ability to breathe?

As far as Carlin goes, I'm not suggesting that rights come from God.

Also, is it just me, or is he agreeing with me? The bill of rights, all of them, have limited rights; only the ones that are enshrined.

We have a list of temporary privileges, that are given to us, and that can shrink. That's pretty much what I'm saying (and I think we're both saying that that is the problem).

And he concludes by saying he thinks we have unlimited rights. Which is exactly what I said.

(24-03-2013 10:30 AM)Ghost Wrote: I am presupposing that we actually have rights. So I was correct to assume that that was my position and that your position is that we do not have rights?

If I can be smothered to death, why assume the ability to breathe?

As far as Carlin goes, I'm not suggesting that rights come from God.

Also, is it just me, or is he agreeing with me? The bill of rights, all of them, have limited rights; only the ones that are enshrined.

We have a list of temporary privileges, that are given to us, and that can shrink. That's pretty much what I'm saying (and I think we're both saying that that is the problem).

And he concludes by saying he thinks we have unlimited rights. Which is exactly what I said.

I just broke it into paragraphs to make it easier to read. I think I put the quotes in order above, but I really don't care, at this point.

No, I already explained that (my position). Plus, you can't assume any thing that is not self-evident, as that would be begging the question i.e. logically invalid reasoning. Your answer to a question, can't be that for which the question was asking you to provide. You can't build a philosophical foundation, an argument, that we have rights, on the basis that we have rights, any more than a person can argue that god exists because god created the universe.

If you had the ability to breathe, that would be self-evident. It's not, however, self-evident, that there are inherent rights. A reasoned argument, has to be provided for inherent and/or natural rights. I'm saying that it's self-evident, by definition of natural rights, that natural rights, do not exist.

Who said that you were suggesting that (God)?

He is making the point that there isn't a fundamental connection between legally given rights, and any kind of natural or inherent rights. If there was, wouldn't you expect that every person would have the same rights? Or maybe that rights wouldn't just be randomly taken away? Those are questions he was discussing.

I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't paid any attention to what you were saying about laws; actually, I could have possibly missed and/or skipped over that, since it didn't have any relevancy to what I was saying.

Again, I would have assumed that is what you were getting at (unlimited rights), as I assumed Chas was getting at, but your views didn't have an effect on what I was pointing out. I mentioned unlimited rights, and addressed the concept, and you apparently didn't understand it (hence why we are still discussing this), and maybe you still don't.

My point, not the original one (dealing with illusion) but the explanation to my position, maybe could be summed up as: there isn't a difference between unlimited rights and no rights at all.

Unlimited rights, is just changing the definition of what a right is, to be in accordance with what I would call natural liberties-- I think that is what you are trying to do; at least me being charitable, I'll assume that. My contention would be that, that doesn't represent an accurate definition of 'rights', but even if it did, it would be useless. Like Carlin pointed out, at the end of the video: You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to shot you in the head for having a shitty opinion. So much for that right to your opinion; it would just cancel out, and there goes your state of nature, Mr. Hobbes.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

(24-03-2013 08:42 AM)TrulyX Wrote: Arbitrary and irrational, at least that is what kind of bullshit I was referring to.

I was just questioning: Why would you stop there?

As easily as you can claim a right to your own person, I can make the same claim about my right to you. I can make a claim to myself, but I also make a claim to Jupiter, the Atlantic ocean, the entire world, the universe, my neighbor's house, etc.

I was just denying that there is any thing, that gives any person, a natural and/or inherent right to something, any thing, thus if you want to pick a thing to claim a right to, you might as well pick everything.

That is irrational.

I know 'that' is irrational.

'That' is why I try to avoid using pronouns, where it would be rational to be more specific.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

No, and yes. No, in the sense that I wasn't specifying any ability, but was referring to any possibly existing ability. Yes, in the sense that the specific abilities you mentioned fall under the term "ability" as I used it, the same way shitty discus thrower, shitty prostitute, etc would, as well as the ability to breath, think, eat, etc.

(24-03-2013 10:30 AM)Ghost Wrote: I also don't understand what you mean by entitlement

"Entitlement" is defined as "a right to benefits specified by law or contract". That's what I was referring to.

That's to be contrasted with how many use the word "entitlement". Another definition of the word is, "belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges". This definition outlines the same behavior found in assuming we have "natural rights". All "rights", like "entitlements" are created by human minds and subsequent efforts.

(24-03-2013 10:30 AM)Ghost Wrote: If I can be smothered to death, why assume the ability to breathe?

If you get smothered to death, it will have been that you were breathing before getting smothered to death, so we could assume you had the ability to breathe, but that you lost it when someone smothered you to death.

That one can lose an ability is not logical reason to deny the current presence of that ability. There is no logical basis, however, for calling that ability, or any other, a "natural right".